September 3, 2013

State Sen. Mark Leno greets the crowds lining the streets for the city's annual Gay Pride Parade in June. Leno wants the state's major pension funds to pull out of Russia in response to a law seen as antigay. Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle

The efforts of a San Francisco legislator to keep California's largest pension funds from investing millions of dollars in Russia is turning into an international affair - with a Russian diplomat claiming that a new law has been unfairly characterized by the media as antigay.

State Sen. Mark Leno, whose resolution would curb investments from the state's largest pension funds, said Russian officials' dismissive attitude toward the backlash over the law shows that they are in "deep denial."

Some LGBT activists say the "antipropaganda" law, passed by Russian lawmakers this summer, could turn the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia into a watershed moment for gay rights. The law punishes anyone who "promotes" homosexuality to young people.

Leno, who is gay, predicted that with the Olympic Games set for Sochi, Russia, in February, "the level of concern and protest is just beginning."

"Russia is going to have a huge problem on their hands," the San Francisco Democrat said last week. "They refuse to get it."

Leno made the comments after receiving a letter from Sergey Petrov, the Russian consul general in San Francisco, who argued that the new law will not erode tolerance of gay people or gay rights in Russia but is in place "only as far as necessary to protect children."

"Punishing a country for having a different opinion is a form of discrimination in itself," Petrov wrote.

Ambiguous wording

On June 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the bill, promoted by conservatives, that bans the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors" - ambiguous wording that critics said could outlaw activities from kissing or holding hands to wearing a rainbow pin.

LGBT activists argue that the law could endanger gay and lesbian parents in and out of Russia who have biological children or hope to adopt kids.

As protests and criticism mount, Putin has taken a hard line. Last week, he banned demonstrations for nearly three months before the Winter Olympics, which will be held Feb. 7-23 in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi.

At the same time, activists have called for boycotts of Russian consumer products and withdrawals of sister-city relationships and U.S. investments in Russia. Bay Area LGBT activist Michael Petrelis said the Winter Games are poised to become "a watershed moment for the global movement" toward LGBT rights.

In August, activists in San Francisco targeted the Russian Orthodox Church, which has strongly backed the new laws, said Petrelis, who helped organize the event.

LGBT groups also have ramped up pressure on corporations including Coca-Cola, a major Olympic sponsor, to pull out of the games.

The high-profile moves are a concern for Russian officials, who issued a rare public response after Leno proposed the resolution urging the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California State Teachers' Retirement System not to invest in Russia.

Leno said he wrote the resolution after learning that CalPERS had a substantial stake in what he described as "the largest-ever transaction in the Russian commercial real estate market." The deal involves Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing's purchase of the Metropolis Mall near Moscow for an estimated $1 billion.

Petrov, in his response to Leno, said the resolution would hurt both countries.

Russia defends law

"The media spin around the adoption in Russia of a law that bans propaganda of non-traditional relations among minors is aimed at portraying our country as being non-tolerant toward the LGBT community," Petrov wrote to Leno. "That is simply not true."

Petrov said gay citizens earned equal rights in Russia in 1993 - a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court banned state sodomy laws in 2003. In his letter, he said Russia's new law was meant to "protect children.”

"Family, motherhood and childhood in the traditional sense are values that lead to the preservation and development" of Russia, Petrov wrote, and "therefore require special protection from the state."

Petrov urged Leno to rethink his resolution.

"If you genuinely want to support the LGBT community in Russia, the most effective way to do that is certainly not to penalize our country but to promote an open and effective exchange of views," the diplomat wrote.

Leno said he is not convinced that Russian officials will safeguard the rights of LGBT activists - before or after the games.

"They could arrest two people of the same gender for holding hands or wearing a rainbow pin," Leno said.

Seizing the moment

While Putin has declared a ban on protests before the Winter Games, Leno said he believes that "there will be entire sections of the stadium that will actively protest."

"Russia leads the charge at the United Nations against progress on human rights for LGBT people, with its 'traditional values resolution,' " she wrote, which makes it "illegal for same-sex parents to adopt in Russia."

Gloria Nieto, a South Bay lesbian activist involved with Russian LGBT organizations, said Bay Area activism in the months before the Olympics seems to be having an impact through social media and could protect Russian LGBT activists from being targeted.

The famed Russian historian who wrote "The Gulag Archipelago" and criticized the communist system and Joseph Stalin was accused of producing "anti-Soviet propaganda" and was exiled for more than a decade in Soviet labor camps.

July 11, 2013

There is a Governor of the state of Pennsylvania by the name of Tom Corbett who is not been too friendly in the trend for Civil rights for gay couples who wish to marry in PA.

For those who thinks that if it says democrat in front of the name that most be for gay rights he is one of those samples that such a thing is not so.

The state of Pennsylvania like a bunch of states dominated by Republicans or DINO’s (Democrats in name only) got such a sexual rush when a Democrat President and a Republican Congress signed a bill into law called DOMA that they went ahead and passed their own! That makes sense right? Yes it does if you follow the weird and strange ways of people in politics. They seldom do the right thing for the right reasons. In this case state polician’s wanted to score political points on the backs of people of the same sex that loved each other. It’s Federal law, but lets put one more nail wether it matters or not in the gay marriage coffin. They should have taken a pulse on the stiff because even back then numbers were climbing. Slowly but still moving. There was life and the stiff was moving.

These DINO’s forgot that in issues of national furor things can change rather drastically, particular when it has to do with civil and human rights. As people are better informed they stop buying from the guy that says that gay people are monsters thieves sexual deviates (what ever that means) and people just hated by god! You have to figure that with the information flow revolution, how can such garbage be believed by fair people no matter what god they serve or not? Tom Corbett is one of those DINO’s.

[Gov. Corbett describing himself]

Now Tom has a problem with his past stance for status quo. You see he is running for reelection and his numbers are not what he would wished for. But that is not all the problems he’s got. The state Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a real Democrat said today

that she wouldn’t defend the the state DOMA in court — raising the issue on a state level for the first time since the Supreme Court ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Since Kane has declined to defend the law, the responsibility falls to Corbett to decide what to do. Pennsylvania General Counsel James D. Schultz said in a statement Thursday afternoon that Corbett’s office “will continue to review the lawsuit” — and took a swipe at Kane.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the first known legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act in Harrisburg earlier this week, naming Corbett, Kane and three other state officials as defendants. The suit argues that Pennsylvania’s law violates a fundamental right to marry and also goes against the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

“We are surprised that the Attorney General, contrary to her constitutional duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs,” Schultz said.

Corbett faces a rock-and-hard place decision. If he opts to defend the law — he’s expressed support for it in the past — Corbett will draw ire from a Democratic base that already despises him. If he chooses not to defend it, he risks alienating the members of his own party he needs for reelection next year.

“Corbett will defend [the law],” said Franklin & Marshall pollster Terry Madonna. “He opposes gay marriage and his conservative base would be furious with him if he does not.”

On the other hand, the suit over the state’s same-sex marriage ban comes at a time when Pennsylvania public opinion on the issue has seen a major shift. A Franklin & Marshall poll from earlier this year found 52 percent of registered voters support same-sex marriage, while 41 percent oppose it

.

By defending the law, said Muhlenberg College pollster Chris Borick, Corbett would be “going counter to general public opinion in the state — but he has to worry first about his very lukewarm support within his own party.”

Corbett, first elected in the GOP wave of 2010, has seen his approval ratings stuck in the low 30s and even 20s, and trails his potential Democratic challengers in most recent polls of the race. The Democratic primary will likely be crowded, with Rep. Allyson Schwartz looking like the likely frontrunner so far.

Borick noted that the electorate in a lower-turnout midterm year like 2014, when Corbett is facing reelection, skews older and more Republican, so the types of voters who will turn up at the polls next year are more evenly split on the issue.

“When you start to look at who shows up in a midterm election like 2014, you’re looking a little bit of a different audience and the issue is more divided,” he said.

March 30, 2013

TAMPA - Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is getting pressure from the liberal side of his party as the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation, and one of the few in the Senate, who opposes gay marriage.Nelson is not the only Florida standout on the issue.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, a longtime supporter of gay rights, is the only Florida Republican in Congress who supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as male-female only.

And while Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, stands with most congressional Republicans in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, former Gov. Jeb Bush, also a possible presidential candidate for 2016, appears to be trying to bridge the split over the question in the Republican Party.

In recent interviews, Bush has called for the issue to be decided by states, not the federal government.

A Bush spokeswoman couldn’t say whether that meant Bush would favor repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

But Bush has called for Republicans to discuss the issue with “a different tone … recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental.”

Nelson’s stance has become conspicuous recently as congressional Democrats have moved rapidly toward favoring what supporters call “marriage equality.”

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly, 85-14, in the Senate, with Democrats, including former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, in favor, and 342-67 in the House. The act was signed by President Bill Clinton.

But as of Tuesday, the Huffington Post website identified only 10 Senate Democrats, including Nelson, who still oppose overturning the marriage act and noted the number was decreasing. One of those 10, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, has since announced she’s in favor.

Meanwhile, all nine Democratic Florida House members, along with Ros-Lehtinen, have signed or said they support a “friend of the court” brief in the current U.S. Supreme Court case urging the court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

In a statement via email from a media spokesman Friday, Nelson said, “I’ve always stood up for civil rights and I support civil unions, but I believe the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Marriage equality backers say the issue is important because if the Supreme Court overrules the Defense of Marriage Act, it could become a state-by-state issue.

Florida Democrats muted criticism of Nelson, the state’s senior elected Democrat and the only one holding statewide office. But some expressed disappointment.

“We’ve been urging people to call him. We know he has been on the right side of other civil rights issues and we hope he’ll get on the right side of this one,” said Susan Smith of Odessa, president of the state party’s Progressive Caucus, citing Nelson’s actions on voting rights in Florida.

Former state Sen. Nan Rich, a candidate for governor, also said she hopes Nelson will change his view.

“When something is wrong, it’s wrong,” she said. “Bill Clinton recognized that and reversed his position. I hope that Sen. Nelson will do the same.”

Nadine Smith of Tampa, executive director of the Equality Florida gay rights advocacy group, said five congressional Democrats changed sides on the issue in the 48 hours prior to the Supreme Court hearings that started Tuesday on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8.

She said her group’s “action alert” to members Wednesday resulted in more than 1,000 messages to Nelson.

Spelled backwords ion her face :)

With federal offices closed Friday, a Nelson spokesman couldn’t confirm the number of contacts to the office.

Ros-Lehtinen has said her history of backing gay rights issues is, in part, because she has a transgendered son, and, in part, because of her husband’s experience being treated by a lesbian nurse for combat injuries in Vietnam.

Jo Deutsch, lobbyist for the Freedom to Marry organization, said Ros-Lehtinen is the only Florida Republican in Congress who supports overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, and the only Republican sponsor of legislation to repeal it.

Rubio said through a spokesman that he believes marriage “is a unique historical institution defined as the union between one man and one woman.”

He said he respects the right of states to legalize same-sex marriage but that it isn’t a U.S. constitutional right, and the federal government “has a compelling need to achieve a level of national uniformity” in applying the legal benefits of marriage.

Therefore, he said, the Defense of Marriage Act should stand “as long as it continues to reflect the consensus definition of marriage among the states.”

In an interview Monday cited by his media spokeswoman, Bush told the conservative website Newsmax he’d prefer that same-sex marriage “be a state-by-state issue.” He cited “growing divergence of opinion” on the issue.

States, he said, can deal with changing social mores better than the federal government.

Meanwhile, in a speech in North Carolina on Thursday, he praised Hagan for taking what he called a “courageous” stance that he said could cause her to lose an election in the conservative state.

July 16, 2012

A panel of three federal judges in D.C. posed skeptical questions on Friday about Texas’ voter ID law during closing arguments in a trial about whether the measure is discriminatory.

The panel of federal judges — George W. Bush appointee Rosemary M. Collyer, Clinton appointee David S. Tatel and Obama appointee Robert L. Wilkins — hopes to issue a ruling on the case in “quick order,” according to Collyer, who expressed doubts about the findings of Texas’ experts in the case.

John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, argued in his closing arguments that people who want to vote already have an ID or can easily get it. Hughes argued that if the state’s voter ID law really disenfranchised anyone the D.C. “courtroom would be filled” with Texans who couldn’t obtain voter ID.

In one of the more awkward exchanges, Hughes offered a semi-defense of literacy tests after one judge said that the reason literacy tests were racist years ago was because of inequalities in the education system. The judge asked if it was Texas’ theory that there would be a problem with literacy tests today. Setting aside other laws banning literacy tests and poll taxes, Hughes said he did not believe a literacy test would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

When a judge noted that some voters would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest DMV to obtain a voter ID, Hughes argued that people in those areas had to travel “long distances to do any number of things.” The judge pointed out that people who live more than 100 miles from a courtroom aren’t even allowed to be subpoenaed because it is “unduly burdensome,” but Hughes argued that traveling far distances was a “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

The panel of judges were also highly critical of how Texas handled discovery during the case, pointing out that they did not request federal records about what Texas residents had forms of federal identification, such as passports. (Texas was making the case that many individuals who did not have a Texas drivers license might have a federal form of ID.)

Matthew Colangelo, a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, argued that Texas’ voter ID law was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it passed the Voting Rights Act. He said surveys indicating that even the majority of African-Americans and Latino voters believe voter ID laws are okay shouldn’t weigh on the case.

“If there were a poll that said literacy tests or poll taxes were popular, that wouldn’t keep the court from striking them down,” Colangelo said.

Colangelo, whose boss Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez listened in on a portion of closing arguments from an overflow room at the courthouse, told the judges it was important to look at the passage of the voter ID law within the context of “tremendous population growth” within Texas’ Latino community.

He argued that the bill gives discretion to poll watchers when matching individuals to names on the voter rolls and could give them “the opportunity to discriminate against Hispanics.”

“Texas has not met its burden,” Colangelo argued.

J. Gerald Hebert, a well-known civil rights lawyer representing those intervening in the case, argued during his closing that the threat of voter fraud was “merely a pretext, a cloak” for a voter suppression effort and that Texas’ effort had been “tinged with race from day one.” He asked the court make an affirmative finding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

The trial, which lasted five days, came about after DOJ objected to the measure signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R), arguing it would have an unfair impact on minorities. Texas had sued DOJ in January for not clearing the law in a timely manner. A voter ID law in South Carolina, a state also covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, will have its day in court later this summer

A panel of three federal judges in D.C. posed skeptical questions on Friday about Texas’ voter ID law during closing arguments in a trial about whether the measure is discriminatory.

The panel of federal judges — George W. Bush appointee Rosemary M. Collyer, Clinton appointee David S. Tatel and Obama appointee Robert L. Wilkins — hopes to issue a ruling on the case in “quick order,” according to Collyer, who expressed doubts about the findings of Texas’ experts in the case.

John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, argued in his closing arguments that people who want to vote already have an ID or can easily get it. Hughes argued that if the state’s voter ID law really disenfranchised anyone the D.C. “courtroom would be filled” with Texans who couldn’t obtain voter ID.

In one of the more awkward exchanges, Hughes offered a semi-defense of literacy tests after one judge said that the reason literacy tests were racist years ago was because of inequalities in the education system. The judge asked if it was Texas’ theory that there would be a problem with literacy tests today. Setting aside other laws banning literacy tests and poll taxes, Hughes said he did not believe a literacy test would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

When a judge noted that some voters would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest DMV to obtain a voter ID, Hughes argued that people in those areas had to travel “long distances to do any number of things.” The judge pointed out that people who live more than 100 miles from a courtroom aren’t even allowed to be subpoenaed because it is “unduly burdensome,” but Hughes argued that traveling far distances was a “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

The panel of judges were also highly critical of how Texas handled discovery during the case, pointing out that they did not request federal records about what Texas residents had forms of federal identification, such as passports. (Texas was making the case that many individuals who did not have a Texas drivers license might have a federal form of ID.)

Matthew Colangelo, a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, argued that Texas’ voter ID law was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it passed the Voting Rights Act. He said surveys indicating that even the majority of African-Americans and Latino voters believe voter ID laws are okay shouldn’t weigh on the case.

“If there were a poll that said literacy tests or poll taxes were popular, that wouldn’t keep the court from striking them down,” Colangelo said.

Colangelo, whose boss Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez listened in on a portion of closing arguments from an overflow room at the courthouse, told the judges it was important to look at the passage of the voter ID law within the context of “tremendous population growth” within Texas’ Latino community.

He argued that the bill gives discretion to poll watchers when matching individuals to names on the voter rolls and could give them “the opportunity to discriminate against Hispanics.”

“Texas has not met its burden,” Colangelo argued.

J. Gerald Hebert, a well-known civil rights lawyer representing those intervening in the case, argued during his closing that the threat of voter fraud was “merely a pretext, a cloak” for a voter suppression effort and that Texas’ effort had been “tinged with race from day one.” He asked the court make an affirmative finding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

The trial, which lasted five days, came about after DOJ objected to the measure signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R), arguing it would have an unfair impact on minorities. Texas had sued DOJ in January for not clearing the law in a timely manner. A voter ID law in South Carolina, a state also covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, will have its day in court later this summer

A panel of three federal judges in D.C. posed skeptical questions on Friday about Texas’ voter ID law during closing arguments in a trial about whether the measure is discriminatory.

The panel of federal judges — George W. Bush appointee Rosemary M. Collyer, Clinton appointee David S. Tatel and Obama appointee Robert L. Wilkins — hopes to issue a ruling on the case in “quick order,” according to Collyer, who expressed doubts about the findings of Texas’ experts in the case.

John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, argued in his closing arguments that people who want to vote already have an ID or can easily get it. Hughes argued that if the state’s voter ID law really disenfranchised anyone the D.C. “courtroom would be filled” with Texans who couldn’t obtain voter ID.

In one of the more awkward exchanges, Hughes offered a semi-defense of literacy tests after one judge said that the reason literacy tests were racist years ago was because of inequalities in the education system. The judge asked if it was Texas’ theory that there would be a problem with literacy tests today. Setting aside other laws banning literacy tests and poll taxes, Hughes said he did not believe a literacy test would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

When a judge noted that some voters would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest DMV to obtain a voter ID, Hughes argued that people in those areas had to travel “long distances to do any number of things.” The judge pointed out that people who live more than 100 miles from a courtroom aren’t even allowed to be subpoenaed because it is “unduly burdensome,” but Hughes argued that traveling far distances was a “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

The panel of judges were also highly critical of how Texas handled discovery during the case, pointing out that they did not request federal records about what Texas residents had forms of federal identification, such as passports. (Texas was making the case that many individuals who did not have a Texas drivers license might have a federal form of ID.)

Matthew Colangelo, a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, argued that Texas’ voter ID law was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it passed the Voting Rights Act. He said surveys indicating that even the majority of African-Americans and Latino voters believe voter ID laws are okay shouldn’t weigh on the case.

“If there were a poll that said literacy tests or poll taxes were popular, that wouldn’t keep the court from striking them down,” Colangelo said.

Colangelo, whose boss Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez listened in on a portion of closing arguments from an overflow room at the courthouse, told the judges it was important to look at the passage of the voter ID law within the context of “tremendous population growth” within Texas’ Latino community.

He argued that the bill gives discretion to poll watchers when matching individuals to names on the voter rolls and could give them “the opportunity to discriminate against Hispanics.”

“Texas has not met its burden,” Colangelo argued.

J. Gerald Hebert, a well-known civil rights lawyer representing those intervening in the case, argued during his closing that the threat of voter fraud was “merely a pretext, a cloak” for a voter suppression effort and that Texas’ effort had been “tinged with race from day one.” He asked the court make an affirmative finding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

The trial, which lasted five days, came about after DOJ objected to the measure signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R), arguing it would have an unfair impact on minorities. Texas had sued DOJ in January for not clearing the law in a timely manner. A voter ID law in South Carolina, a state also covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, will have its day in court later this summer

A panel of three federal judges in D.C. posed skeptical questions on Friday about Texas’ voter ID law during closing arguments in a trial about whether the measure is discriminatory.

The panel of federal judges — George W. Bush appointee Rosemary M. Collyer, Clinton appointee David S. Tatel and Obama appointee Robert L. Wilkins — hopes to issue a ruling on the case in “quick order,” according to Collyer, who expressed doubts about the findings of Texas’ experts in the case.

John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, argued in his closing arguments that people who want to vote already have an ID or can easily get it. Hughes argued that if the state’s voter ID law really disenfranchised anyone the D.C. “courtroom would be filled” with Texans who couldn’t obtain voter ID.

In one of the more awkward exchanges, Hughes offered a semi-defense of literacy tests after one judge said that the reason literacy tests were racist years ago was because of inequalities in the education system. The judge asked if it was Texas’ theory that there would be a problem with literacy tests today. Setting aside other laws banning literacy tests and poll taxes, Hughes said he did not believe a literacy test would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

When a judge noted that some voters would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest DMV to obtain a voter ID, Hughes argued that people in those areas had to travel “long distances to do any number of things.” The judge pointed out that people who live more than 100 miles from a courtroom aren’t even allowed to be subpoenaed because it is “unduly burdensome,” but Hughes argued that traveling far distances was a “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

The panel of judges were also highly critical of how Texas handled discovery during the case, pointing out that they did not request federal records about what Texas residents had forms of federal identification, such as passports. (Texas was making the case that many individuals who did not have a Texas drivers license might have a federal form of ID.)

Matthew Colangelo, a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, argued that Texas’ voter ID law was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it passed the Voting Rights Act. He said surveys indicating that even the majority of African-Americans and Latino voters believe voter ID laws are okay shouldn’t weigh on the case.

“If there were a poll that said literacy tests or poll taxes were popular, that wouldn’t keep the court from striking them down,” Colangelo said.

Colangelo, whose boss Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez listened in on a portion of closing arguments from an overflow room at the courthouse, told the judges it was important to look at the passage of the voter ID law within the context of “tremendous population growth” within Texas’ Latino community.

He argued that the bill gives discretion to poll watchers when matching individuals to names on the voter rolls and could give them “the opportunity to discriminate against Hispanics.”

“Texas has not met its burden,” Colangelo argued.

J. Gerald Hebert, a well-known civil rights lawyer representing those intervening in the case, argued during his closing that the threat of voter fraud was “merely a pretext, a cloak” for a voter suppression effort and that Texas’ effort had been “tinged with race from day one.” He asked the court make an affirmative finding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

The trial, which lasted five days, came about after DOJ objected to the measure signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R), arguing it would have an unfair impact on minorities. Texas had sued DOJ in January for not clearing the law in a timely manner. A voter ID law in South Carolina, a state also covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, will have its day in court later this summer

The Forest Needs help

Adamfoxie Blog Int. (Click the Fox-please)

Adam Gonzalez, Publisher

ONE 💔

ONE (RED) Join The Campaign Vs.AIDS

Free for Nonprofit

If you are known non-profit dealing with LGBT health issues, world hunger, and some health issues in general, We will give you a free spot showing in all 13 pages of this site. You can contact the publisher at adamfoxie@Gmail.comWe reserve the right to choose how this nonprofit fits this media blogging site